3 ms·

James Watson Saw the True Form of DNA. Then It Blinded Him.

4 points by voxadam 11mo ago

voxadam 11mo ago
https://archive.is/BGX54 https://archive.is/BGX54
bell-cot 11mo ago
#1 argument against anyone advocating Eugenics: Its centuries of well-documented piss-poor performance in European nobility.
- arresin 11mo ago
  That was obviously not eugenics.
  - bell-cot 11mo ago
    Wasn't it? "Royal blood" === "superior genes", "common blood" === "inferior genes", etc. Other than switching to modern faux-scientific vocabulary, I'm not seeing a real distinction.
1970-01-01 11mo ago
> If you think there is one single fundamental essence that makes you you more than anything else, you’re at risk. Pretty bad take right at the end. We're supposed to be ashamed of biological strengths? I have red hair and take pain very well[1], but I cannot speak to that being a strength in life because it's wrong to do so? There are other non-extreme examples of biological differences being strengths but that example alone dissolves the flippant conclusion. [1] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/study-finds-link-between-red-hair-pain-threshold https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/study-f...
- hat_monger 11mo ago
  [dead]
- foxyv 11mo ago
  > If you think there is one single fundamental essence that makes you you more than anything else You mentioned two things. Also you never claimed you were "more" than everything else. Just that you were better at two things than some people.
  - 1970-01-01 11mo ago
    ?
    - foxyv 11mo ago
      Their argument is that, when you try to make value judgements on human life using some mystical single element, you are failing at the first hurdle. Just like MLK said, judge men based on the content of their character, not on the basis of their skin. You construed that as "Be ashamed of your biological strengths." Just kinda weird.
      - 1970-01-01 11mo ago
        We must be reading different concluding sentences.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 11mo ago
  > We're supposed to be ashamed of biological strengths? No, you misread the sentence. They put two "you"s in it because your red hair and pain tolerance do not make you "you" any more than your daily decisions about how to live your life. It's got nothing to do with "better" or "stronger".

4 points by voxadam 11mo ago

https://archive.is/BGX54 https://archive.is/BGX54

#1 argument against anyone advocating Eugenics: Its centuries of well-documented piss-poor performance in European nobility.

arresin 11mo ago
That was obviously not eugenics.
- bell-cot 11mo ago
  Wasn't it? "Royal blood" === "superior genes", "common blood" === "inferior genes", etc. Other than switching to modern faux-scientific vocabulary, I'm not seeing a real distinction.

1970-01-01 11mo ago

> If you think there is one single fundamental essence that makes you you more than anything else, you’re at risk. Pretty bad take right at the end. We're supposed to be ashamed of biological strengths? I have red hair and take pain very well[1], but I cannot speak to that being a strength in life because it's wrong to do so? There are other non-extreme examples of biological differences being strengths but that example alone dissolves the flippant conclusion. [1] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/study-finds-link-between-red-hair-pain-threshold https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/study-f...

hat_monger 11mo ago
[dead]
foxyv 11mo ago
> If you think there is one single fundamental essence that makes you you more than anything else You mentioned two things. Also you never claimed you were "more" than everything else. Just that you were better at two things than some people.
- 1970-01-01 11mo ago
  ?
  - foxyv 11mo ago
    Their argument is that, when you try to make value judgements on human life using some mystical single element, you are failing at the first hurdle. Just like MLK said, judge men based on the content of their character, not on the basis of their skin. You construed that as "Be ashamed of your biological strengths." Just kinda weird.
    - 1970-01-01 11mo ago
      We must be reading different concluding sentences.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 11mo ago
> We're supposed to be ashamed of biological strengths? No, you misread the sentence. They put two "you"s in it because your red hair and pain tolerance do not make you "you" any more than your daily decisions about how to live your life. It's got nothing to do with "better" or "stronger".